As we have already seen, people lose their minds over elections, and cheating is a perennial problem.

As far as the Bernie Sanders supporters are concerned, the super delegate system, as well as the collusion of DWS and Donna Brazile with the Clinton campaign show that the nominating process was rigged.

There is also the problem that the electronic voting machines are insecure. There is some overlap between the Open Society Foundation and the Board of Directors of at lease one maker of voting machines, Smartmatic, which states on its website that it has deployed 57,000 vote counting machines in 15 states. There is no information as to how the vote count is to be totaled or verified, and there is plenty of technical information available that demonstrates that vote counting fraud is feasible.

Smartmatic is not the only voting machine company, and the security problem exists with all of them.

1. an idiot yahoo named Keith Olbermann was making the allegations… Now its the candidate idiot yahoo himself making the allegations

2. the idiot yahoo making the allegations was speaking about verifiable HISTORICAL charges (which weren’t true, as it happens). The current idiot yahoo is talking about PROSPECTIVE stuff that obviously CANNOT be verified.

I was present when the voting machine consultant for the State of Maryland told Rep. Shane Pendergrass that there would be no way to secure the vote count on the touch screen machines.

The State of Maryland adopted the new machines, with Shane Pendergrass’ enthusiastic support. That system replaced a paper-ballot-plus-scanner system that had survived a post-election audit, and which yielded results in a non-presidential year, statewide, within 30 minutes.

Both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections saw many documented cases of vote fraud, vote irregularities and voter fraud; all in favor of the Democrat candidate. Now, in both those elections the elimination of fraud would not have made a significant difference in the Presidential race, as it was not a close contest. However, it did effect several Congressional races, all in favor of the Democrat candidate. So, if history is any standard, then we can expect to see wide spread attempts at fraud in favor of the Democrat candidate in this election.

The reason that Trump is bringing this up now, is two-fold. One is prophylactic. If enough exposure of the possibility of fraud is made made, then this may reduce the actual attempts at fraud. The second is to set the stage for a case that fraud did, in fact, occur, if Trump loses. The media is currently running a counter campaign using manufactured poll results in order to make a case that the contest is going to be close, without and fraud.

We’ll have to wait and see if any fraud does occur, the extent and who benefits from it. However, if the fraud is proven to have occurred and it is likely to have caused Trump to lose the election, then all bets are off as to what will happen next.

Proof would be nice, Mac45. Proof would consist of actual prosecutions which are almost non-existent.

Trump’s reasons are indeed prophylactic. He is going to lose. He is going to lose badly – beyond anything that can be blamed on fraud. But Trump’s brand is about winning. What is his brand going to be worth when he loses?

ORDA, you write: “Proof would be nice, Mac45. Proof would consist of actual prosecutions which are almost non-existent.”

Are you really saying that no crime exists except once it’s prosecuted successfully? So, what? Unsolved murders didn’t happen because the murderers were never caught and prosecuted? Wall Street bankers didn’t break any laws because they were only fined and not prosecuted? If the allegations are true of Trump’s sexual assaults, they really aren’t because they haven’t been prosecuted? What a bizarre way you have of looking at the world.

As far as “proof” of voting fraud, how about these examples (there are MANY more, btw):

Voter fraud exists and is relatively wide-spread. However, as the prof notes, no one really knows what Trump means by “rigged” or the election being “stolen.” He probably doesn’t even know; he just loves throwing red meat at his base.

FS, if as is reported on NPR and in other locations, 350,000 Wisconson citizens are being denied their right to register to vote based on overly technical regulations or bureaucratic obstruction or mismanagement, is that a crime? If that hyper vigilance is only occurring in counties that vote predominately Democratic, is that a crime? Is it a crime for Trump to organize his supporters to intimidate voters in parts of the country that predominately vote democratic. I can produce 11 hyperlinks, if that will influence your opinion. Intentional voter suppression is a crime (fraud, extortion). Suppression is many magnitudes larger. If it is not a crime, it should be enacted along with the voter-id laws. Fair is fair! We all want fair.

Trump is not claim the election is being rigged because he doesn’t like his press. The merits of that claim can be debated. But it definitely not stealing.

In one example of suppression, a man moved from Indiana to Wisconsin and presented a valid Indiana license. He was told he needed his birth certificate. No one questioned the validity of his license. He was allowed to drive home. What happened to the ‘full faith and credit clause’? You guys do carry your pocket copies of the constitution?

It recently took me 2 weeks and some fee to get my dad’s birth certificate and I needed mine to prove I was his son! I can do that for my 95 year old father who saw serious combat in WW II. Not everyone could. In NY, he didn’t actually need it, but I thought he should have it.

Actually, no murder exists until there is a conviction. I make think that the FBI murdered some Black Panthers, but they weren’t convicted. If a case in unsolved, it may be presumed to be a murder, but there could be other explanations. That is why we have trials. There are times when it seems obvious. Seems.

Mac45, above, asserts that in all cases of fraud it was always malfeasance in favor of the democrat. Bull!

To your links:

USA: 1 person who might have been stopped by an ID law. Maybe she looked like her sister and could have used her sister’s id? The other 2 case were by absentee ballot and would not have been affected by an ID Law. Do you wish to infer that 1 conviction is the tip of the iceberg. You may do that, but it doesn’t prove it. It was not a scientific sample.

USA 2: Convicted Felons are already subject to the voting laws of the state in which they reside. We don’t need any new law, but I have no objection to enforcing the existing ones. I do think that felons should not, necessarily be disenfranchised for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, in 2000 in FL, 10’s of thousands of legal voters were struck from the rolls by a republican leaning consulting firm hired by a republican governor. We do not know how the illegal voters or illegally disenfranchised would have voted. Do Felons all vote Democratic? In the case of Franken, they would all have had to vote for him. Was there no countervailing republican fraud – which Minnesota Majority wasn’t looking for? Besides, how would IDs have changed that? They didn’t misrepresent who they were.

usuncut: obviously the database got hacked or there was a programming bug. I once made a change to a CBS program and some divisions had their charges for data services doubled or tripled. I am good at what I do, but I made a mistake and it cost me all of a Thanksgiving weekend to repair the damage. What does this have to do with fraud? Qui bono? It took work by the Sec of State of AZ, but the provisional ballots could be cross-check. What new law is needed? What fraud was committed? I could understand an attempt at fraud if Hillary wanted to run against Trump and getting democrats to vote in the republican primary would have helped that. But that was not the case. Seems like a programming bug to me.

NYT: “This is not a case of voter fraud, it’s a case of voter registration fraud,” quoting the Sec of State. Mickey Mouse did not get to vote. Only real people got to vote. It was not a scam by ACORN. It was poor supervision of people getting paid by the signature. There is a law against that and the error was caught. Do you wish to infer that it is the tip of the iceberg. Do you have a scientific sample. I do know that when some republican idiot tried to prove how easy it was, she got caught. No I don’t have the citation at hand.

I have had enough. Yes, we should strive to limit invalid registration or voting. Of course. But we should also strive to make sure that no citizen is impaired or unduly burdened in his/her right to vote. Where you fall on this issue may be a matter or bias, but it shouldn’t be.

Depending on what you mean by “physical tampering”, that’s not the preferred vector for vote fraud. Multiple-precinct voting because no verification is done, fake registrations followed up with by-mail ballots, and simple ballot manufacturing (see both the Christine Gregoire and Al Franken elections) are how Democrats steal elections.

The Franken v Coleman election was so close that you could claim that Franken’s victory was based on the direction of the wind or the season of the witch.

Do you have proof that “Multiple-precinct voting because no verification is done, fake registrations followed up with by-mail ballots, and simple ballot manufacturing” occurred? Do you have proof, it occurred, that there wasn’t cheating by both sides?

I am saying it is like a football game in which a ref makes a last second bad call that affects the game. Do you think it was the only bad call? If one side clearly was winning, the call wouldn’t have mattered. Funny think is, I am sure that Gore defeated Bush, but I don’t keep crying about it.

As for the allegations of fraud, it seems that the losing side is the side making the claims. That doesn’t make them true, just makes the accusers bad losers. Coleman pulled every trick he could. It was a very nasty election. Franken just had less reason to want to rehash them.

Go on. Keep crying over it. Franken is going to win in a laugh this time.

The big thing that Trump is claiming about rigging the election revolves around how so much of the MSM is effctively working as Crooked Hillary campaign operatives. For example, last week with a bit over an hour of coverage, 1/3 of it was about the unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault by Trump, and less than a minute on Wikileaks, which showed DNC chair Brazille giving a townhall (against Sanders) giving a question in advance to Clinton, two high level Clinton campaign leaders (including campaign chair Podesta) making derogatory statements about Catholics and Evangelcals, more Pay-to-play with her at the State Dept, attempts to declassify documents on her illegal, private, email server, news that most of the FBI agents and attys involved in the email investigation wanted her prosecuted, etc. All suppressed and buried, while they concentrated on the so conveniently timed, completely unsubstantiated, claims of improper touching of women by Trump.

Trump received more coverage than any other candidate this election. 2 billion worth, as a matter of fact, most came during the primaries in the form of unedited, unchecked rallies. Funny he didn’t complain about the media bias then.
We called the media on that and we warned Trumpkins that they are sitting on massive October surprises. Trumpkins reassured us that Trump know s how to work the media.
As for the “unsubstantiated ” allegations, they merely confirm what most of the country believed about Trump already. Are you surprised that he’s entitled and deceitful? That women came forward to say that he really did to them what he bragged about doing? The Don is not being tried in the court of law, and he burden of proof that he has the character to lead is on him.
And by the way, a few months ago there was a NYT story for which they interviewed a beauty queen who said she found Donald in her hotel bed one night. Trumpkins were all upset about the media bias then, pointing that NYT distorted her story because she said that datiNg Donald was a generally positive experience.

Yes. In the dual interview on the Intrepid with Matt Lauer, most of the Hillary interview was spent on those very emails. Democrats thought that was over-kill. Some bitterly complained how unfair it was.

Elections are hardball. I have heard that Trump refused to hire anyone to do an independent vetti of himself. Isn’t that politics 101? Should someone who doesn’t know that be President?

Every one of our guests from the deep, deep South (illegal aliens) will come out in force to do their civic duty bestowed upon them by the government of the United States of America. They are all registered to vote despite it being a violation of Federal Law. The States are doing the Feds dirty work in paving the way for this. That is what rigged means. Open your eyes people.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Announcement

ThirdWindow

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Author Quick Hits!